Controversies continue to rage over the nature of the court's power. Though the concept of judicial independence is central to preservation of individual liberty (how else is the executive kept beneath the law?) a judicary dubbed too independent, too removed from the preferences of the democratic public, has to charges of imperialism. In this section we will consider some of the issues associated with the nature of the court's power. We will focus on these three central conflicts.
Internet students, I want you to write at least 100 words on each of the following topics
1. Review recent writings about the judicial views of John McCain and Barack Obama and outline what impact each has been predicted to have on the Supreme Court.
2. Search through recent court activity and find an example where the court either actively involved itself in a dispute, or restarined itself from doing so.
3. Focus on a current dispute over constitutional meaning. What is the constitutional language at issue? What is the loose interpretation? What is the strict interpretation? Which is likelt to carry the day? Why?
Lecture students. please prepare for a quiz on the following topics, terms, and names.
1 - Conflicts over control of the court.A key power that the president, together with the Senate, has over the nature of the courts is its composition. One only becomes a member of the federal court by being appointed, with the confirmation of the Senate. In order to ensure that the court is then independent -- not subject to control by the person or institution that did the appointing -- judges then serve for life (during good behavior). Presidents try to appoint individuals who share their philosophy, but doing so can be difficult since the life time terms removes any direct control that might exist. Nevertheless, one of the issues underlying any presidential election is the type of people a president is likely to appoint to the courts, or the Supreme Courtif a vacancy arises. Some argue persuasively that the biggest impact a president is likely to have in the long term is the nature of the people he places in the federal sourts and on the Supreme Court.
2 - Conflicts over the role of the courts. Are the courts intended to be passive arbiters of individual cases or active participants in policymaking? Should the court be active or restrained? These are ongoing disputes. Some argue that since the courts are unelected, they should leave all matters of policymaking to the political branches--those that are elected by the general population, but others point out that majorities can abuse individual -- minority -- rights and that the courts are the only institution that can protect those rights.
3 - Conflicts over the interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution is a relatively brief and vague document. Some suggest that helps explain its longevity. It can be reinterpreted in order to apply to the circumstances of each passing generation. Others argue that this is not the case, that embedded within the seemingly vague language is a crystal clear intent on the part of the founders that should not deviate. The former are called loose constructionsts who see the Constitution as a living document subject to change, the latter are strict constructionists -- though they quarell over the label -- who see limits on the range of interpretation.
Notes
Ultimately it is the Suprene Court that defines what the Constitution means
This explains why confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justices are so contentious.
Majority decisions establish precedence for how the Constitution will be interpreted in at least the near future.
Current composition of the Supreme Court
- The Conservatives
- Anthony Kennedy
- The Liberals
An example of current conflict: Morse v. Frederick.
Week Thirteen
Readings, Notes, and Assignment
The Judiciary: Current Conflicts
Readings and Links:
- The Unites States Supreme Court.
- Washington Post: Supreme Court.
- New York Times Topics: Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court Historical Society.
- Oyez Project.
- Landmark Supreme Court Cases.
Controversies continue to rage over the nature of the court's power. Though the concept of judicial independence is central to preservation of individual liberty (how else is the executive kept beneath the law?) a judicary dubbed too independent, too removed from the preferences of the democratic public, has to charges of imperialism. In this section we will consider some of the issues associated with the nature of the court's power. We will focus on these three central conflicts.
Internet students, I want you to write at least 100 words on each of the following topics
1. Review recent writings about the judicial views of John McCain and Barack Obama and outline what impact each has been predicted to have on the Supreme Court.
2. Search through recent court activity and find an example where the court either actively involved itself in a dispute, or restarined itself from doing so.
3. Focus on a current dispute over constitutional meaning. What is the constitutional language at issue? What is the loose interpretation? What is the strict interpretation? Which is likelt to carry the day? Why?
Lecture students. please prepare for a quiz on the following topics, terms, and names.
Subject Matter:
1 - Conflicts over control of the court. A key power that the president, together with the Senate, has over the nature of the courts is its composition. One only becomes a member of the federal court by being appointed, with the confirmation of the Senate. In order to ensure that the court is then independent -- not subject to control by the person or institution that did the appointing -- judges then serve for life (during good behavior). Presidents try to appoint individuals who share their philosophy, but doing so can be difficult since the life time terms removes any direct control that might exist. Nevertheless, one of the issues underlying any presidential election is the type of people a president is likely to appoint to the courts, or the Supreme Courtif a vacancy arises. Some argue persuasively that the biggest impact a president is likely to have in the long term is the nature of the people he places in the federal sourts and on the Supreme Court.
2 - Conflicts over the role of the courts. Are the courts intended to be passive arbiters of individual cases or active participants in policymaking? Should the court be active or restrained? These are ongoing disputes. Some argue that since the courts are unelected, they should leave all matters of policymaking to the political branches--those that are elected by the general population, but others point out that majorities can abuse individual -- minority -- rights and that the courts are the only institution that can protect those rights.
3 - Conflicts over the interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution is a relatively brief and vague document. Some suggest that helps explain its longevity. It can be reinterpreted in order to apply to the circumstances of each passing generation. Others argue that this is not the case, that embedded within the seemingly vague language is a crystal clear intent on the part of the founders that should not deviate. The former are called loose constructionsts who see the Constitution as a living document subject to change, the latter are strict constructionists -- though they quarell over the label -- who see limits on the range of interpretation.
Notes
Ultimately it is the Suprene Court that defines what the Constitution means
This explains why confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justices are so contentious.
Majority decisions establish precedence for how the Constitution will be interpreted in at least the near future.
Current composition of the Supreme Court
- The Conservatives
- Anthony Kennedy
- The Liberals
An example of current conflict: Morse v. Frederick.